The 2001 Foot and Mouth Outbreak: Economic Arguments against an Extended Cull

1.1. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced, on 15 March, stringent additional measures to counter the spread of the current foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. These involve a concentration of effort in the areas where clusters of the disease exist: specifically, a cull of all sheep and pigs within a 3-kilometre radius of each outbreak in Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, Tyne and Wear, and County Durham; a similar cull of all sheep that have come into contact with animals sold through Welshpool, Northampton and Longtown marts after 19 February, or through two dealers known to have come into contact with infected animals; more intensive monitoring in Devon; and a voluntary disposal scheme for sheep flocks stranded at tack far from their main holding, where their movement would incur a high risk of spreading infection and their welfare is jeopardised. Most recently, on the 24 March, the intention to cull sheep and pigs within a 3- kilometre radius of all outbreaks has been announced. 1.2. It is the intention of this briefing paper to demonstrate that, whether or not these measures bring the outbreak under control, their cost would exceed the main benefit secured from not adopting the alternative strategy of vaccination. The argument, by the government and the main farming unions, has been that because vaccination currently makes it impossible to distinguish between healthy and infected animals, the UK would lose disease-free status, and exports of livestock or livestock products to third countries could legitimately be banned under the phytosanitary conditions of the 1993 GATT agreement. However, to a large extent, the main exports in question are to the 14 other members of the EU; exports of cattle, sheep and pig-based products from the UK outside the EU are negligible.